Library

• All
• Ambiguity
• Formal
• Presumption
• Relevance
• Weak induction

• Ad HominemAttacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself.
• Affirming the ConsequentFrom “if P then Q” and Q, wrongly concluding that P must be true.
• AmbiguityExploiting a word or sentence that can be read more than one way to mislead or evade.
• Anecdotal FallacyRelying on a personal story or isolated example instead of solid evidence.
• Appeal to AuthorityTreating a claim as true simply because an authority figure asserts it.
• Appeal to EmotionManipulating feelings in place of a valid reason to accept a conclusion.
• Appeal to ForceUsing threats or pressure, rather than reasons, to make someone accept a conclusion.
• Appeal to IgnoranceTreating a claim as true because it hasn't been proven false (or false because unproven).
• Appeal to NatureAssuming something is good because it's natural (or bad because it's unnatural).
• Appeal to TraditionTreating something as correct simply because it's how things have always been done.
• BandwagonClaiming something is true or right because many people believe or do it.
• Base Rate FallacyIgnoring how common something actually is in favor of specific but less reliable detail.
• Begging the QuestionAssuming the truth of the conclusion inside the premises meant to support it.
• Burden of ProofDemanding that doubters disprove a claim instead of supporting it yourself.
• Composition / DivisionAssuming what's true of the parts must be true of the whole, or vice versa.
• Denying the AntecedentFrom “if P then Q” and not-P, wrongly concluding that not-Q.
• EquivocationUsing a word in two different senses within one argument as if it meant the same thing.
• Fallacy of AccidentRigidly applying a general rule to an exceptional case it was never meant to cover.
• False CauseAssuming that because two things are linked, one must have caused the other.
• False DilemmaPresenting only two options when more exist (also called black-or-white thinking).
• False EquivalenceTreating two things as equivalent over a shared surface trait, despite a major difference.
• Genetic FallacyJudging a claim as good or bad based on its origin rather than its actual merits.
• Hasty GeneralizationDrawing a broad conclusion from a sample that's too small or unrepresentative.
• Loaded QuestionAsking a question that smuggles in an unproven assumption, so any direct answer concedes it.
• Middle GroundAssuming the truth must lie in a compromise between two opposing positions.
• Moralistic FallacyInferring what is from what ought to be — that because something should be so, it is so.
• Naturalistic FallacyInferring what ought to be from what is — that because something is the case, it's good.
• Nirvana FallacyRejecting a workable option because it isn't a flawless, ideal solution.
• No True ScotsmanDefending a generalization by redefining it on the fly to exclude any counterexample.
• Personal IncredulityConcluding something is false because you personally can't imagine how it could be true.
• Red HerringDiverting attention to an irrelevant topic to distract from the issue at hand.
• Slippery SlopeClaiming one small step will inevitably lead to a chain of dire outcomes.
• Special PleadingApplying a rule to others but inventing an unjustified exception for your own case.
• Straw ManMisrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
• Sunk Cost FallacyContinuing something because of resources already spent rather than its future value.
• The Fallacy FallacyAssuming a claim must be false just because the argument for it was flawed.
• The Gambler's FallacyBelieving past random outcomes change the odds of future independent ones.
• The Texas SharpshooterCherry-picking clusters in data to fit a pattern while ignoring what doesn't fit.
• Tu QuoqueDeflecting criticism by accusing the critic of the same fault instead of answering it.
• Undistributed MiddleConcluding two things are the same just because they share a common property.